Sign In

Well, as with most things in life, it’s probably a bit of both – more dependent on what you do [& how you do it] than some magical process that suddenly makes society fall in love with you.

Or an ad only made by Saatchi&Saatchi.

The reason I say this is that I recently read an article that made me like the London Underground a bit more.

I know … I know … the carriages can get hot and very crowded – plus I don’t have to ride them on a daily basis any more – but that aside, Embankment station recently did a little gesture that potentially will have more impact on making people feel emotionally bonded to them than any amount of ads.

This is what they did:

How lovely is that eh?

The guys at Embankment station didn’t have to reuse Oswald’s voice for their ‘Mind The Gap’ announcement – the widow would have been happy to have just had a copy – but by showing some genuine compassion, they’ve not only made me feel good about them, they’ve made me want to tell as many people as possible.

[What a shame only 6 people read this blog and they’re not the sort of folk most people cross the road to avoid]

OK … OK … so the ‘value’ of this act only has merit if lots of people hear about it, plus there’s an incredible amount of data that suggests ‘brand love’ doesn’t translate to ‘brand loyalty’ [Look at slides 18 to 27 or simply read any book by Byron Sharp] … however even though I live in China and only ride the tube a few times a year, I will – from now on – always feel a little ‘pang’ of warmth when I arrive at Embankment station and will always purposefully listen out for Oswald’s instruction/warning … which is more than 99% of ads can ever make me do, despite being planned and executed by bunch of proprietary tools that supposedly have the answer to everything in the Universe.

So remember Mr Roberts, Love Marks isn’t a process, it’s an attitude and a behaviour and while your agency has lots of lovely clients doing lots of lovely work, the reality is it doesn’t need Saatchi to do it to get it.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

look at me being the first to comment. its just like old fucking times except i have a life these days and this is just a coincidence because no other sad fuck could be bothered to ramble on this shit.

youre a sentimental fucking fool campbell, but you also are prone to kicking lovemarks bullshit straight in the bollocks so even though every fucking part of me screams for me to run and hide, ill put up with you and your planning bollocks for a little bit longer.

when did i suddenly lose the ability to write in proper fucking sentences. fucking hell, maybe being close to all these planner wankers has infected me. like avian flu but with more deadly fucking results.

and for all the stuff being spouted about brand love meaning fuck all because no bastard is loyal any more. no fucker mentions that if you don’t build any brand fucking love bollocks, you wont get the chance to be fucking replaced in the first place. its not bollocks its just not all you should fucking focus doing.

Careful Andy, you’re showing people that you’re more than just a vulgar mouth. It’s a good point though I don’t think people are questioning the importance of building a brand people want to emotionally connect to, just that being emotionally connected doesn’t mean myopic loyalty.

Though I seem to be living proof that view is not entirely correct given my unwavering focus on Queen, Birkenstocks and Apple stuff.

That is a very touching story about Oswald and Embankment Station. Of course what you’re saying is correct, advertising plays only a small, yet significant, role in developing brand love. The real generator is the consistent actions and behaviour of the brand at points of conflict or experience.
What your post also highlights is how small acts of emotional generosity have the capacity to overcome audience frustrations and annoyances. Not for ever, but quite possibly for longer and more meaningfully than a 30 second ad. Even one executed by Mr Roberts and his team.

They did the right thing but maybe not simply for the reasons they publicised. And the widow sounded very happy in all the interviews she gave, though at that time they hadn’t actually replaced the announcement.

It’s a lovely story but if Oswald’s warning message is the same as the more contemporary version, the station management didn’t have to do too much to help. They did a great thing that will mean a lot to Mrs McCollum but what I’m saying is their actions still operated within their system, they didn’t change it just for her.

If Lego can get global praise for sending a young boy a replacement piece of Lego after he lost the original, then Embankment Station more than deserve the same level of accolades. It’s not about how easy it was to do, but the fact they did it and did it beyond the expectations of the customer.

The Lego thing was lovely mainly because of the charm that was infused in what they did … and while the same could be leveled at the Embankment Station story, the fact they went beyond just ‘giving a tape to the widow’ is worthy of even greater respect, even if it has been amplified by [admittedly great] PR … which, let’s not forget, could also be something Lego did too.

Brand generosity or opportunistic PR, reading this has made a few things clear to me.

1. Rob is still a bastard/softy hybrid.
2. I miss Andy’s comments, especially when he raises good points in his swearing.
3. If it’s spin, embankment station have the smartest PR team in England.
4. Lovemarks is spin without the credibility.
5. Baz and John could and possibly should, start cynic 2.0

As we all know, sometimes the potential of reality is more powerful than reality itself. Regardless of the stories authenticity or the level of involvement required by Embankment to make it happen, it makes you feel good and changes your perception, even for a few seconds, of the underground service.

All good points.
I’ve often thought that relevance was more important than love.
I’m quite misty eyed about HMV, but can’t think of a reason to shop there these days.
Love is a dangerous word, in enables brand consultant wankers to equate a relationship with a brand with REAL love, for your wife, for your kids, for Star Wars.
It enables social media fools to spout how much people want to be part of brand, or even do stuff for it
The best metaphor is probably the kind of ‘love’ you get from a hooker. Men pay them for a service, and will pay more if they do it better and they’re attractive. But they also pay them to fuck off and leave them alone after the service has been provided. But sometimes, a flash of thigh doesn’t half get you in the mood for more

Great point … it’s like when consultants try and equate a brand to a “celebrity”. As my wife keeps screaming, brands aren’t people … people are people. Besides, all people have asshole sides (allegedly) and so if a brand was really like a person, they’d be days when they wouldn’t want to get up and if forced to, they’d sulk then scream.

As for your ‘prostitute’ analogy – that’s really good because they have told me that one of the most common things they see is the man phoning their other half within minutes of finishing the ‘act’ as if that nullifies their guilt … which is a bit like people buying a brand other than the one they claim to be loyal to, but then going on how they prefer the other.

OK, enough of these prostitute analogies, I have to go call my wife. Ahem.